How to ease players into a sandbox style?

[kitsune9]

There was a poster here who coined the term "rowboat campaign" in which the DM basically describes what you asked but the players have that glazed look or don't know what to do.

Here's my approach to a sandbox game:

1. Start with an encounter. The PC's are on the way to a town/village/etc. and get involved in an ambush/bandits/monsters. They find tracks, go to dungeon, clear it out, and then head to village. The village talks about a couple of other problem areas in the east and south. The players now have a choice. They can:

a. Go east to location A.
b. Go south to location B.
c. Continue onto the next village. As they explore hexes, they could run into other locations.

2. Start the players out completely lost so the immediate goal is clear--find civilization. Since sandboxes involve exploration, then as the PC's explore the area, they are likely to run into planned encounters, random encounters, and eventually find a settlement. From there they get more information of where they came from so they may be inclined to go back or set off in another direction.

Personally, I think a sandbox should start with at least one immediate goal--you get caught in the thick of some action, it leads to a location, and from that location you discover or "unlock" new locations. Kind of like how Grand Theft Auto uses their sandbox. Eventually, the entire sandbox is explored and the goals the PC's had are met.

 

[Quickleaf]

There was a poster here who coined the term "rowboat campaign" in which the DM basically describes what you asked but the players have that glazed look or don't know what to do.

LOL. Not quite that bad, but my players seem to be fighting a group "rowboat" effect, yes. Maybe I have a really soothing voice or something?

Here's my approach to a sandbox game:

1. Start with an encounter. The PC's are on the way to a town/village/etc. and get involved in an ambush/bandits/monsters. They find tracks, go to dungeon, clear it out, and then head to village. The village talks about a couple of other problem areas in the east and south. The players now have a choice. They can:

a. Go east to location A.
b. Go south to location B.
c. Continue onto the next village. As they explore hexes, they could run into other locations.

So, and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] got me curious about this, how would you present those choices?

 

[nedjer]

@nedjer I meant "jobs board" in the loose sense of quest-givers who provide PCs with paid opportunities which they are free to decline, usually with no repercussion. Sorry if I was unclear or misinterpreted you.

I was in a rush both posts and didn't explain well. For sandboxes I propose they get a selection of overarching frameworks that suggest a wide range of challenges/ activities/ stuff to do - including killing monsters and stealing their life savings.

So I might sketch out through NPCs, etc . . . options mashing-up the beginnings of the Californian goldrush, Boudicca's campaign against the Romans or the conquest of Peru. After adding a thick coating of fantasy over the top - the action doesn't have to stick to the framework, but certain options common to gold-rushes, etc . . . will suggest themselves aka scaffold play/ events, e.g. for a gold-rush staking a claim, convoys through dangerous territory, claim-jumpers, stolen gold dust, breaking through a mine wall and entering a sealed-off world.

 

[kitsune9]

So, and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] got me curious about this, how would you present those choices?

Hi Quickleaf,

So let's say I have at the beginning of my campaign, i start the PC's in Location A which is a bandit lair. From there, they will find a map that leads to Location B (some abandoned dungeon) and they find a book that details another ruin in a completely different location (Location C). If the PC's decide to just explore, then there's a couple of other places or events that occur that the PC's will run into.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Did you say 10 to 15 times?

10 to 15 separate incidents of this happening before one or two of the players catch on, and start handling it themselves. Each such incident, I only have to say something once.

Bear in mind, my approach probably violates some sandbox rule of the GM producing content ignorant of player interests. But I see it as, why build dungeons when the players want city intrigue?

Yeah, probably not pure sandbox, but as far as I'm concerned, sandbox techniques are too darn useful and fun to leave to the pure practioners.

That's one of the reasons why I haven't run a pure sandbox in ages. I've known my current group so long, I can pretty much predict which things will interest them and improv on the exceptions. My sandbox notes would be almost worthless, as sandbox, to anyone else--or even me, with a different group. I only know it is generally applicable because I spent several years starting new groups from scratch, due to having to move.

 

[The Shaman]

Here're some suggestions that work for me.

 

[S'mon]

Re building sandbox content - I regard my Yggsburgh campaign as essentially a pure sandbox, and Gygax built a vast amount of content in ignorance of player interests and goals. But of course he didn't define EVERYTHING*, and I'm still creating new NPCs and creating new content either to fill in gaps or in response to expressed player interest.

*Almost no female NPCs, for instance, and the children of the major power players are also mostly left undetailed.

 

[S'mon]

So, and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] got me curious about this, how would you present those choices?

"There are bleak hills to the east, a fetid swamp to the south, and a dirt track leads north into scrubby woodland".

90% of players will follow the track IME, unless they've heard a rumour of treasure in the swamp.

 

[S'mon]

I kind of doubt it was the cause of the analysis paralysis. It is common practice for a project manager or mediator to list out the options that a group has identified through its discussions.

You can't blame the list or the guy who formalized the list for causing the problem.

the party itself lacked leadership to reign in the conversation. That doesn't mean one player decides. But one player should have taken that list and called a vote. To get the party moving.

I disagree - the players were told the choices by email PRIOR to their round-table discussion. That's different from a mediator summing up a discussion at-table in order to help the group make a final decision. The mediator should only be giving options the group has already put forward as viable, not adding his own opinions. That's why I don't like chairing discussions, I don't get to expound my own brilliant ideas.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Some people don't do well with "sandbox" style. My group is full of them. They claim they want freedom and instead of adventuring we have finding some safe every-day work life. They are utterly boring, that is. I have similar tendercy but I have another one too that ruins game if gm has prepared to cater for "ordinary" stuff.

I start spawning chaos by actions and by wild stories. I always suggest something imaginative to what is behind some perfectly ordenary even. And I know it, it's just my way to force change and failing that simple make my time more interesting.

I find sandbox is often synonymous for gm who is too lazy to come up with cool stuff. I don't know anyone who has done it well. With plot you can at least pull players who want to do different things to same direction. I don't want to emulate ordinary life I could do with my life, if I were less lazy. I want fantastic stuff.

Then again same problems tend to rise in more linear game. So, I think most important thing is to know your group. If someone can't handle game without plot do some micro-plots/events and maybe some major-ach but the one that gets visited about as often as tv-series do it (first and last episode of season). It's important that world has interesting events going on if players get themselves entangled into them.

And if you have equally hard to please group I have think events that they as group would have some common intrest or you risk running 5 different solo games. And avoid elements that call for some player's personal pet-peave. Don't let those things be available.

For my players "no, nobody is selling farm right now", "no, you don't find excelent horse for breeding", "no, tavern is not hiring", "no, there aren't any nobles hanging there" etc. These things seem simple enough but knowing my people they lead to lot of boring gaming. Anything related wanting to settle is warning sign. Also they aren't living in area where there is cold winter, so they don't have to find "place to stay" for winter.

You can't mix without plot that hits you into head at times with group that includes people who want to play "D&D - the Farmville" "D&D - Incursions of Chaos", "D&D - Erotic adventures, and "D&D - Dungeons & Dragons".